Also-Rans: NCDC and GISS Global Surface Temperatures Finish 4th and 7th for 2013

Not a win, place or show between them.  In other words, global surface temperatures are still stalled in the post-1997/98-El-Niño era.  They are patiently waiting for another strong El Niño to release a batch of sunlight-created warm water from below the surface of the tropical Pacific before they resume their step-like climb in Trenberth-declared “big jumps”.

Initial Note: This post will serve as the December 2013 Global Surface (Land+Ocean) Temperature Anomaly Update.  The standard format for the post follows this introduction of the 2013 annual results.

GISS AND NCDC ANNUAL REPORTS

On January 21st, GISS and NCDC published their 2013 results for global surface temperatures.   The UKMO update will follow in a few weeks.

The GISS Global Temperature Update Through 2013 from James Hansen (yes, a retired James Hansen apparently is still involved at GISS), Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy begins (my boldface):

Summary. Global surface temperature in 2013 was +0.6°C (~1.1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, thus the seventh warmest year in the GISS analysis. The rate of global warming is slower in the past decade than in the prior three decades. Slower growth of net climate forcings and cooling in the tropical Pacific Ocean both contribute to the slower warming rate, with the latter probably the more important effect. The tropical Pacific cooling is probably unforced variability, at least in large part. The trend toward an increased frequency of extreme hot summer anomalies over land areas has continued despite the Pacific Ocean cooling. The “bell curves” for observed temperature anomalies show that, because of larger unforced variability in winter, it is more difficult in winter than in summer to recognize the effect of global warming on the occurrence of extreme warm or cold seasons. It appears that there is substantial likelihood of an El Niño beginning in 2014, and as a result a probable record global temperature in 2014 or 2015.

Looks like Hansen is back predicting El Niños again.  Considering his poor track record…well.  But before we get carried away with comments about Hansen El Niño predictions, the ENSO models are also predicting weak to moderate El Niño conditions by summer.  See pages 26 and 27 of NOAA’s Weekly ENSO Update. However, it’s well before the spring prediction barrier, so the models have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

The NOAA/NCDC Global – State of the Climate Report for 2013 includes (my boldface):

The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.

The final sentence is curious, some might think meaningless, one of those “who cares” comparisons.  We all know the 1997/98 El Niño released a monumental amount of sunlight-created warm water from below the surface of the tropical Pacific and that the surface temperatures for about 67% of the surface of the global oceans shifted upwards almost 0.2 deg C as a result…and remained there, perfectly happy, until the 2009/10 El Nino.  See the illustration here from the December 2013 sea surface temperature update.  And, of course, the other 33% of the surface of the global oceans has warmed very little—basically shows no warming—in 32 years, as shown in the graph here.

I’ll include a comparison graph of annual data in the update next month, after the UKMO updates the HADCRUT data for December.  It will be very similar to the graph using year-to-date 2013 annual data here that I created for the October 2013 Global Land+Sea Surface Temperature update.

Back to your regularly scheduled update:

Additional Notes:  The remainder of this post includes graphs of running trends in global surface temperature anomalies for periods of 13 and 16+ years using HADCRUT4 global (land+ocean) surface temperature data.  They indicate that we have not seen a warming halt this long since about 1980 for the 13-year and the 16-years+ trends.

Much of the following text is boilerplate. It is intended for those new to the presentation of global surface temperature anomaly data.

Most of the update graphs in the following start in 1979.  That’s a commonly used start year for global temperature products because many of the satellite-based temperature datasets start then.

GISS LAND OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEX (LOTI)

Introduction: The GISS Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data is a product of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.  Starting with their January 2013 update, it uses NCDC ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data.  The impact of the recent change in sea surface temperature datasets is discussed here.  GISS adjusts GHCN and other land surface temperature data via a number of methods and infills missing data using 1200km smoothing. Refer to the GISS description here.   Unlike the UK Met Office and NCDC products, GISS masks sea surface temperature data at the poles where seasonal sea ice exists, and they extend land surface temperature data out over the oceans in those locations.  Refer to the discussions here and here. GISS uses the base years of 1951-1980 as the reference period for anomalies.  The data source is here.

Update:  The December 2013 GISS global temperature anomaly is +0.60 deg C.  It cooled (a drop of about -0.18 deg C) since November 2013.

01 GISS

GISS LOTI

NCDC GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES

Introduction: The NOAA Global (Land and Ocean) Surface Temperature Anomaly dataset is a product of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).  NCDC merges their Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 3b (ERSST.v3b) with the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly (GHCN-M) version 3.2.0 for land surface air temperatures. NOAA infills missing data for both land and sea surface temperature datasets using methods presented in Smith et al (2008). Keep in mind, when reading Smith et al (2008), that the NCDC removed the satellite-based sea surface temperature data because it changed the annual global temperature rankings.  Since most of Smith et al (2008) was about the satellite-based data and the benefits of incorporating it into the reconstruction, one might consider that the NCDC temperature product is no longer supported by a peer-reviewed paper.

The NCDC data source is usually here.  NCDC uses 1901 to 2000 for the base years for anomalies.

Update: (Note: the NCDC has been slow with this month’s update at the normal data source webpage, so I’ve used the value listed on their State of the Climate Report for December 2013.)  The December 2013 NCDC global land plus sea surface temperature anomaly was +0.62 deg C.  It too dropped considerably (about -0.16 deg C) since November 2013.

02 NCDC

NCDC Global (Land and Ocean) Surface Temperature Anomalies

UK MET OFFICE HADCRUT4 (LAGS ONE MONTH)

Introduction: The UK Met Office HADCRUT4 dataset merges CRUTEM4 land-surface air temperature dataset and the HadSST3 sea-surface temperature (SST) dataset.  CRUTEM4 is the product of the combined efforts of the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. And HadSST3 is a product of the Hadley Centre.  Unlike the GISS and NCDC products, missing data is not infilled in the HADCRUT4 product.  That is, if a 5-deg latitude by 5-deg longitude grid does not have a temperature anomaly value in a given month, it is not included in the global average value of HADCRUT4. The HADCRUT4 dataset is described in the Morice et al (2012) paper here.  The CRUTEM4 data is described in Jones et al (2012) here. And the HadSST3 data is presented in the 2-part Kennedy et al (2012) paper here and here.  The UKMO uses the base years of 1961-1990 for anomalies.  The data source is here.

Update (Lags One Month):  The November 2013 HADCRUT4 global temperature anomaly is +0.60 deg C.  Like the other two datasets, it increased (about +0.12 deg C) between October and November 2013.

03 HADCRUT4

HADCRUT4

155-MONTH RUNNING TRENDS

As noted in my post Open Letter to the Royal Meteorological Society Regarding Dr. Trenberth’s Article “Has Global Warming Stalled?”, Kevin Trenberth of NCAR presented 10-year period-averaged temperatures in his article for the Royal Meteorological Society. He was attempting to show that the recent halt in global warming since 2001 was not unusual.  Kevin Trenberth conveniently overlooked the fact that, based on his selected start year of 2001, the halt had lasted 12+ years, not 10.

The period from January 2001 to November 2013 is now 155-months long. Refer to the following graph of running 155-month trends from January 1880 to November 2013, using the HADCRUT4 global temperature anomaly product. The last data point in the graph is the linear trend (in deg C per decade) from January 2001 to the current month. It is basically zero. That, of course, indicates global surface temperatures have not warmed during the most recent 155-month period. Working back in time, the data point immediately before the last one represents the linear trend for the 155-month period of December 2000 to October 2013, and the data point before it shows the trend in deg C per decade for November 2000 to September 2013, and so on.

04 HADCRUT4 155-Month Trends

155-Month Linear Trends

The highest recent rate of warming based on its linear trend occurred during the 155-month period that ended about 2004, but warming trends have dropped drastically since then.  There was a similar drop in the 1940s, and as you’ll recall, global surface temperatures remained relatively flat from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s.  Also note that the about 1980 was the last time there had been a 155-month period without global warming—before recently.

198-MONTH RUNNING TRENDS

In his RMS article, Kevin Trenberth also conveniently overlooked the fact that the discussions about the warming halt are now for a time period of about 16 years, not 10 years—ever since David Rose’s DailyMail article titled “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it”.  In my response to Trenberth’s article, I updated David Rose’s graph, noting that surface temperatures in April 2013 were basically the same as they were in June 1997.  We’ll use June 1997 as the start month for the running 16-year trends.  The period is now 198-months long. The following graph is similar to the one above, except that it’s presenting running trends for 198-month periods.

05 HADCRUT4 198-Month Trends

198-Month Linear Trends

The last time global surface temperatures warmed at the minimal rate of 0.03 deg C per decade for a 198-month period was also about 1980.  Also note that the sharp decline is similar to the drop in the 1940s, and, again, as you’ll recall, global surface temperatures remained relatively flat from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s.

The most widely used metric of global warming—global surface temperatures—indicates that the rate of global warming has slowed drastically and that the duration of the halt in global warming is unusual during a period when global surface temperatures are allegedly being warmed from the hypothetical impacts of manmade greenhouse gases.

A NOTE ABOUT THE RUNNING-TREND GRAPHS

There is very little difference in the end point trends of 12+ year and 16+ year running trends if HADCRUT4 or NCDC or GISS data are used. The major difference in the graphs is with the HADCRUT4 data and it can be seen in a graph of the 12+ year trends.  I suspect this is caused by the updates to the HADSST3 data that have not been applied to the ERSST.v3b sea surface temperature data used by GISS and NCDC.

COMPARISON

The GISS, HADCRUT4 and NCDC global surface temperature anomalies are compared in the next three time-series graphs. The first graph compares the three global surface temperature anomaly products starting in 1979. Again, due to the timing of this post, the HADCRUT4 data lags the GISS and NCDC products by a month.  The graph also includes the linear trends.  Because the three datasets share common source data, (GISS and NCDC also use the same sea surface temperature data) it should come as no surprise that they are so similar.    For those wanting a closer look at the more recent wiggles and trends, the second graph starts in 1998, which was the start year used by von Storch et al (2013) Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? They, of course found that the CMIP3 (IPCC AR4) and CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) models could NOT explain the recent halt.

The third comparison graph starts with Kevin Trenberth’s chosen year of 2001. All three of those comparison graphs present the anomalies using the base years of 1981 to 2010.  Referring to their discussion under FAQ 9 here, according to NOAA:

This period is used in order to comply with a recommended World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Policy, which suggests using the latest decade for the 30-year average.

06 Comparison Starting 1979

Comparison Starting in 1979

###########

07 Comparison Starting 1998

Comparison Starting in 1998

###########

08 Comparison Starting 2001

Comparison Starting in 2001

AVERAGE

The last graph presents the average of the GISS, HADCRUT and NCDC land plus sea surface temperature anomaly products. Again because the HADCRUT4 data lags one month in this update, the most current average only includes the GISS and NCDC products.  The flatness of the data since 2001 is very obvious, as is the fact that surface temperatures have rarely risen above those created by the 1997/98 El Niño.

09 Average

Average of Global Land+Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Products

 

Advertisements

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in LOST Update. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Also-Rans: NCDC and GISS Global Surface Temperatures Finish 4th and 7th for 2013

  1. In the Average of Global Land+Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Products, what happened for 2007 to have the only peak higher than 1998?

  2. fhhaynie says:

    I see a 60 +/- 5 year cycle in those x months trend graphs with possible harmonics around 30 and 15 years. Linear trends are not too reliable as predictors when climate change is not linear.

  3. Bob Tisdale says:

    Andres Valencia, 1998 was considerably higher than 1997. Here’s GISS LOTI data as a reference…because the annual data is listed.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

    Regards

  4. Bob Tisdale,

    you write:

    We all know the 1997/98 El Niño released a monumental amount of sunlight-created warm water from below the surface of the tropical Pacific and that the surface temperatures for about 67% of the surface of the global oceans shifted upwards almost 0.2 deg C as a result…and remained there, perfectly happy, until the 2009/10 El Nino.

    I am curious. What made the surface of the ocean in the rest of the world stay at the level of 0.2 deg. C warmer temperatures after the 1997/98 El Nino? And according to your graphic it also happened after other El Ninos since the mid 1980ies. Why didn’t the sea surface temperature return to the pre-El Nino values? That the SST was “perfectly happy” is certainly not the physical explanation for this. To increase the temperature in the Earth system, or in a component of it, you need a positive net energy flow into the Earth system or the component. El Nino doesn’t generate energy in the Earth system. It only redistributes energy. So it couldn’t have done it.

    What is your explanation? Where is the energy coming from?

  5. Bob Tisdale says:

    Jan Perlwitz says: “What is your explanation? Where is the energy coming from?”

    The processes of ENSO must be new to you, Jan. I’ve been explaining this and confirming it with data for years. You’re right that an El Niño doesn’t create heat, that it only redistributes it. But what you’re overlooking is the other phase of ENSO. The energy, all that glorious warm water, for the 1997/98 El Niño was created during the 1995/96 La Niña. That’s the way ENSO works. It’s a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, recharge-discharge oscillator.

    You work for GISS and you don’t understand that the ocean heat content data and the satellite-era sea surface temperature data both indicate that ENSO is the primary process through which the oceans warm? That’s quite remarkable, Jan. Don’t GISS climate scientists examine the instrument temperature records in logical subsets to see how data indicate the oceans warmed? Or do they solely create climate models based on the assumed impacts of infrared radiation on the oceans? From what you’re asking, it sounds like the latter. And since climate models STILL can’t simulate ENSO, or the AMO, or the similar multidecadal variations in the sea surface temperatures of the North Pacific (not the PDO), then some might consider that climate scientists still have no clue as to why global warming occurs.

    See the post “Untruths, Falsehoods, Fabrications, Misrepresentations” for a reasonably detailed overview of how ENSO causes ocean warming, Jan.

    Your questions were answered years ago so let me now ask you for some documentation.

    Please provide links to the GISS climate model-based, peer-reviewed papers that explain how and why the sea surface temperatures of the East Pacific (90S-90N, 180-80W) haven’t warmed in 31 years.

    Figure 3

    Please provide links to the GISS climate model-based, peer-reviewed papers that explain how and why the warming of the sea surface temperatures of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans with the coordinates of 90S-90N, 80W-180 is dependent on the strong El Niño events of 1986/87/88, 1997/98 and 2009/10 and why they did not cool proportionally during the trailing La Niñas.

    Figure 4

    Please provide links to the GISS climate model-based, peer-reviewed papers that explain how and why the warming of the ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific is dependent on the 1973-76 and 1995/96 La Niña events, and without those La Niñas the ocean heat content for tropical Pacific would cool.

    Figure 5

    Please provide links to the GISS climate model-based, peer-reviewed papers that explain how and why the warming of the ocean heat content of the North Pacific (north of the tropics) is dependent on a 2-year climate shift (1989-90), and without that climate shift, the ocean heat content for the North Pacific would cool. (It’s a combined effect of a shift in the North Pacific Index (NPI) and the 1986/87/88 El Niño, BTW)

    Figure 6

    I posed similar requests to SkepticalScience in the post last year SkepticalScience Still Misunderstands or Misrepresents the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). I still haven’t heard back from them. Maybe they’re still looking.

    I discussed the above four graphs and the natural processes that caused their warming in the illustrated essay “The Manmade Global Warming Challenge” [42MB] and in the YouTube video series “The Natural Warming of the Global Oceans” Part 1 and Part 2. I’d normally also provide a link to book Who Turned on the Heat? but I suspect you’d never buy it, so I won’t bother.

  6. Bob Tisdale,

    The processes of ENSO must be new to you, Jan. I’ve been explaining this and confirming it with data for years.

    I noticed that you often attack the person, like in this post, when you engage. Other “skeptics” too. This seems to be a modus operandi of the “skeptics”. It’s a way to poison the atmosphere. This is one of the things, which also have made the Watts-Blog such an unpalatable place.

    You’re right that an El Niño doesn’t create heat, that it only redistributes it. But what you’re overlooking is the other phase of ENSO. The energy, all that glorious warm water, for the 1997/98 El Niño was created during the 1995/96 La Niña. That’s the way ENSO works. It’s a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, recharge-discharge oscillator.

    I agree that ENSO is a phenomenon of internal chaotic variability. I never have said anything else. I also don’t have any problem with the explanation that it was sun light fueled. At the end, everything in the Earth system is sun-light fueled, because the sun is the primary source of the energy flow into the Earth system. However, this doesn’t explain a warming trend of the oceans yet. To get an ocean warming trend, you need a net influx of energy, i.e., more energy has to come into the system (e.g., through direct solar radiative input) than to leave the system, which would be in the form of latent, sensible, and radiative heat flux from the oceans to the atmosphere. A system in energetic equilibrium doesn’t warm. It’s dynamics may be sun light fueled, but it just moves around some average state infinitely, even if it is chaotically. So, if the solar activity stays the same, and the system has adjusted to the given level of solar activity, it is in equilibrium, and no ocean warming would be observed.

    Solar activity hasn’t increased since solar cycle 21, it rather has slightly decreased, and the decrease has accelerated with the current cycle, apparently. You may have noticed that solar activity has been quite low recently. How do you reconcile this with your explanation that the sun was the source for the global ocean warming trend, which is continuing, even without any deceleration, if you look at the total heat content of the upper most 2000 m, even though there hasn’t been any increasing solar activity? Is the decreasing sun activity supposed to be the cause for this continuing global ocean warming (ultimately leading to global surface/tropospheric warming, since the oceans heat the atmosphere) then? Or is the sun supposed to always lead to an ocean warming trend, no matter whether the sun’s activity is increasing, staying the same, or decreasing?

    I am not going to play along with your try to change the discussion to the GISS model. I am talking about ocean and ENSO physics, global ocean warming, energy (im)balances and the causal relationships that lead to the observed ocean warming.

  7. Bob Tisdale says:

    Jan Perlwitz says: “So, if the solar activity stays the same, and the system has adjusted to the given level of solar activity, it is in equilibrium, and no ocean warming would be observed.”

    And you continued, “Solar activity hasn’t increased since solar cycle 21, it rather has slightly decreased, and the decrease has accelerated with the current cycle, apparently.”

    You’re discussing solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere, Jan. We’re not interested in solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere; we’re interested in the downward shortwave radiation at the surface of the tropical Pacific. There, decreases in cloud amount during La Niña events result in drastic increases in downward shortwave radiation at the surface. On the other hand, downwelling longwave radiation at the surface of the tropical Pacific decreases during La Niña events, Jan. So, if there’s an increase in downward shortwave radiation at the surface of the tropical Pacific during La Niñas, and if there’s a decrease in downwelling longwave radiation there during La Niñas, what caused the drastic rise in tropical Pacific ocean heat content data during the 1995/96 La Niña, as shown above in the graph of tropical Pacific OHC?

    Jan Perlwitz says: “You may have noticed that solar activity has been quite low recently. How do you reconcile this with your explanation that the sun was the source for the global ocean warming trend, which is continuing, even without any deceleration, if you look at the total heat content of the upper most 2000 m, even though there hasn’t been any increasing solar activity?”

    Well, Jan, if you divide the NODC vertical mean temperature data into a few subsets, see the graph here, we can see that the largest ocean basin on this planet, the Pacific, hasn’t warmed to depths of 0-2000m in the last 10 years. BTW, that’s where the heat should be hiding according to Trenberth and Fasullo. The North Atlantic also shows no warming. How do your GISS Model E simulations account for that, Jan? As Judith Curry noted in her blog post here, about that graph:

    Warming trends (0-2000 m) are seen in the Indian Ocean and the South Atlantic, with slight cooling trends in the Pacific and North Atlantic. Now it seems difficult to me to cook up an explanation for this regional variation in trends that relies on external forcing, although I suspect that someone will think of some rationale for aerosol/black carbon forcing to explain this. This most likely reflects natural internal variability. It doesn’t look like an AGW signal to me. More regional analyses for the past decade would be very helpful in trying to sort this out.

    Jan Perlwitz says: “I am not going to play along with your try to change the discussion to the GISS model. I am talking about ocean and ENSO physics, global ocean warming, energy (im)balances and the causal relationships that lead to the observed ocean warming.”

    As I noted before, Jan, you don’t appear to have any grasp of ENSO physics. Your questions and statements in your latest comment appear to confirm that for all those reading this thread.

    Regarding your not wanting to “play along with [my] try to change the discussion to the GISS model”: Well, Jan, this is my home. I set the rules. That’s a pretty simple concept. You’re wasting my time with misdirection and AGW dogma. If you don’t want to “play along” and answer a few simple questions, then maybe you may want to go “play” somewhere else.

    If you’d like to continue to “play” here, the simplest thing for you to do is admit that there are no GISS ModelE-based, peer-reviewed studies that explain how, where and why the oceans warmed as they did. If your models can’t explain the warming of the individual subsets, then they can’t explain the warming of the global oceans.

    Have a nice day.

  8. A C Osborn says:

    Perhaps you should ask Jan Perlwitz to explain this
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/

  9. Mike Mangan says:

    Be nice, Bob. He’s a government scientist so he probably doesn’t know how clouds work, either. You can bet that that someone at GISS has sat him down and reviewed the policy on not engaging skeptics, though. Bad for business for “climate scientists” to have their ears directly boxed.

  10. RichardLH says:

    Jan: Off topic probably (sorry Bob) but would you pop along the corridor and get Hansen to update his published work to include the GISS data to date.

    I posted an update of my own to the Nature thread and Nate is all hot and bothered about it not coming from the original source.

  11. Bob Tisdale:

    You’re discussing solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere, Jan. We’re not interested in solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere;

    “The fuel for El Niño events is provided by the warm surface and subsurface waters of the tropical Pacific. The ultimate source of the energy to create that warm water is the sun.”
    (Source: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/untruths-falsehoods-fabrications-misrepresentations/)

    You should make up your mind whether the sun is the energy source or not. The question was where does the energy surplus in the oceans come from, which causes the global ocean warming trend over the whole depths of 2000 m over multiple El Ninos and which also made the SST after each El Nino stay above the level of the pre El Nino time in your graphic.

    There, decreases in cloud amount during La Niña events result in drastic increases in downward shortwave radiation at the surface. On the other hand, downwelling longwave radiation at the surface of the tropical Pacific decreases during La Niña events, Jan. So, if there’s an increase in downward shortwave radiation at the surface of the tropical Pacific during La Niñas, and if there’s a decrease in downwelling longwave radiation there during La Niñas, what caused the drastic rise in tropical Pacific ocean heat content data during the 1995/96 La Niña, as shown above in the graph of tropical Pacific OHC?

    Not my problem to explain that. I am not the one who tries to explain the global (ocean) warming trend with El Nino. Clouds, which vary with El Nino/La Nina, cannot generate the warming trend, because they are just a dependent variable in the system, responding to the changes of the heat flux from the oceans.

    Well, Jan, if you divide the NODC vertical mean temperature data into a few subsets, see the graph here, we can see that the largest ocean basin on this planet, the Pacific, hasn’t warmed to depths of 0-2000m in the last 10 years.

    10 years don’t say anything regarding the multi-decadal warming trend. But the trend is still upward, also in the Pacific basin. Here are the data:
    http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly_mt/T-dC-p0-2000m.dat

    The year 2013 was the warmest year in the Pacific basin since 1955, according to the data. The year 2012 was the second warmest.

    The same for the global average of the oceans:
    http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly_mt/T-dC-w0-2000m.dat

    Global (ocean) warming is continuing.

    And you can’t explain this secular warming trend with your pet theory. You can’t explain what the energy source is for the continuing global (ocean) warming, because it was axiomatic that the radiative perturbation in the longwave range of the spectrum due to increasing greenhouse gases couldn’t be the cause. And the sun isn’t playing along.

    As I noted before, Jan, you don’t appear to have any grasp of ENSO physics.

    Au contraire. You are the one who doesn’t understand physics sufficiently. Your replies to my questions have revealed that to me.

    Your questions and statements in your latest comment appear to confirm that for all those reading this thread.

    Argumentum ad populum. As if the confirmation you would get from your followers who obviously don’t understand the physics either then, would prove anything.

    Regarding your not wanting to “play along with [my] try to change the discussion to the GISS model”: Well, Jan, this is my home. I set the rules. That’s a pretty simple concept. You’re wasting my time with misdirection and AGW dogma. If you don’t want to “play along” and answer a few simple questions, then maybe you may want to go “play” somewhere else.

    Well, you do what you got to do. I didn’t let Anthony Watts bully me into anything, and I won’t let you do that either. It seems to be a common trait among AGW-“skeptics” that they can’t take when they are being contradicted.

  12. G. Karst says:

    Jan Perlwitz: You are displaying your lack of physics and understanding. A somewhat risky display for someone in your position of employment. You might as well explain your ideology and finish the job. Good luck with your new dry-walling aspirations. GK

  13. RichardLH says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says:
    January 23, 2014 at 11:12 am

    “Here are the data:”

    So, given that there are clear 60 year cycles in HadSST, SOI, PDO, AMO, etc. and that your data set only extends back as far as 1955, what is your analysis of any longer term patterns?

    That data set is a bit short to claim ‘hottest year’ with a straight face isn’t it? I know you said 1955 but that is like yesterday for the planet as a whole.

  14. A C Osborn says:

    Jan P Perlwitz says: January 23, 2014 at 11:12 am
    I have a couple of question for you Jan, when the world wide Ocean Temperatures are calculated in those datasets, do they take in to consideration the Surface Area of the Oceans at their specific temperatures as well as those temperatures, or just the average temperatures.

    You have talked a great talk about Bob’s lack of Physics, perhaps you would like to display for us some of yours, rather than just posting a couple of datasets?

  15. Bob Tisdale says:

    Jan Perlwitz, you quoted one of my posts, provided a link, then wrote:

    You should make up your mind whether the sun is the energy source or not…

    I don’t have time to waste with someone, like you, who quotes me out of context, Jan. What parts of the discussions in that post of trade wind strength, cloud cover, ocean heat content and downward shortwave radiation at the surface of the tropical Pacific did you miss? Apparently all of them.

    Jan Perlwitz said:

    10 years don’t say anything regarding the multi-decadal warming trend. But the trend is still upward, also in the Pacific basin. Here are the data:
    http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly_mt/T-dC-p0-2000m.dat

    Thanks for providing the link for anyone who wants to confirm that the Pacific Ocean to depths of 2000 meters hadn’t warmed from 2003 to 2012. Now we can present an updated version of the graph with the NODC’s data through 2013. As we can see quite plainly, the only ocean basins to show any significant warming to depths of 2000 meters during the ARGO era continue to be the South Atlantic and the Indian Oceans. Did you bother to plot it, Jan? Did you think that I haven’t? I simply don’t have the time anymore to prepare all of the blog posts that I would like to publish, when I would like to publish them. Did you think that little 2013 uptick in the Pacific data would make a big difference, Jan?

    NODC ARGO Era Vertical Mean Temp per Basin to 2013

    The little uptick in the 2013 Pacific data still doesn’t support the Trenberth and Fasullo hypothesis, because 2013 was ENSO neutral. And what you’re avoiding is that little uptick in 2013 only provides a slight warming trend for the Pacific Ocean to depths of 2000 meters, which is a small percentage of the warming that’s supposed to be there based on your GISS ModelE climate models—same thing for the global data. Thus Trenberth’s continued search for the missing heat. Your climate models also can’t explain why the vertical mean temperature data for the North Atlantic to depths of 2000 meters continue to show no warming from 2003 to 2013.

    And…your appeal to the long-term trend for the 0-2000 meter data illustrates your lack of understanding of the NODC data. Are you aware that the temperature sampling coverage of the global oceans from 700-2000 meters is basically nonexistent before 2003, and what’s there is mostly in the Northern Hemisphere, Jan? Check the IPCC’s Figure A.3.2 from AR5. See the post here. The NODC’s 0-2000 meter dataset is a make-believe dataset before the ARGO era, Jan.

    Jan Perlwitz said:

    Global (ocean) warming is continuing. And you can’t explain this secular warming trend with your pet theory.

    Global ocean warming to depths of 0-2000 meters may be continuing but it’s continuing at a much slower pace than predicted and it’s occurring on a basin-selective basis, which does not agree with the hypothesis of human-induced, CO2 driven, warming of those oceans.

    Additionally, it’s not my pet theory, Jan. I present data. Data are not pet theories. And because you failed to provide any links, I will have to conclude that there are no GISS modelE papers (which are based on theory) that explain how, where and why the tropical Pacific and the extratropical North Pacific warmed to depth, as shown in the graphs above…or explain why the surface of the East Pacific hasn’t warmed in 32 years and the surface temperatures of the rest of the global oceans only warmed in response to the strong El Niño events…or explain why, during the ARGO era, the North Atlantic and Pacific Ocean (0-2000m) show little to no warming since 2003. If those papers existed, Jan, you would have been overjoyed to present them.

    Jan Perlwitz said:

    I didn’t let Anthony Watts bully me into anything, and I won’t let you do that either.

    That’s a silly topic for you to bring up anywhere, Jan. Very silly. Anthony Watts banned you permanently from WUWT because you, Jan Perlwitz, threatened to shoot someone. Do you remember that? On July 9, 2013 at 9:31 pm, you wrote:

    If you are dreaming about pitchforks and torches, tar and feathers against climate scientists, bring it on. I shoot you dead.

    You, Jan Perlwitz, made that death threat on the Professor Murry Salby who is critical of AGW theory, is being disenfranchised, exiled, from academia in Australia thread at WUWT.

    Thank you for NOT threatening to shoot someone dead here at my blog.

    Also, I’m not bullying you, Jan. I made simple requests of you…to supply climate model-based, peer-reviewed papers that explained how and why the oceans warmed (or didn’t warm) in the fashions they did. I know those papers don’t exist. All you had to do is admit it. Climate models don’t simulate ENSO properly…and they do not include the drastic upward shifts caused by changes in sea level pressure (and their interrelated wind patterns) as is evident in the OHC data for the extratropical North Pacific…and they cannot simulate the multidecadal variability of the surface and subsurface temperature of the North Atlantic. A long time ago, climate modelers simply assumed greenhouse gases were responsible for the warming. Bad assumption. And it’s a bad assumption that they can seem to free from their minds.

    Bottom line, I don’t have the time or the need to respond to your continued presence here. You’re more than welcome to return when you provide links to the peer-reviewed, GISS ModelE-based papers that can explain how, when and where the oceans warmed as they did (or didn’t)—as shown above in my replies to you on this thread. I suspect it will be decades before you’re back, Jan.

    Jan Perlwitz said:

    Au contraire. You are the one who doesn’t understand physics sufficiently. Your replies to my questions have revealed that to me.

    I really enjoy your Monty Python contradiction style of argument, Jan. It’s in common use on the AGW side of the debate. How funny.

    And as I’ve written and presented on numerous occasions, my understandings of ENSO are based on data: ocean heat content data, cloud amount data, sea surface temperature data, ocean current data, trade wind strength and direction data, downward shortwave radiation data, downwelling longwave radiation data, lower troposphere temperature data, precipitation data, sea level data, etc. I’ve plotted and animated maps of those datasets to help people understand the ENSO-caused interrelationships between them.

    Last, in response to my statement…

    There, decreases in cloud amount during La Niña events result in drastic increases in downward shortwave radiation at the surface. On the other hand, downwelling longwave radiation at the surface of the tropical Pacific decreases during La Niña events, Jan. So, if there’s an increase in downward shortwave radiation at the surface of the tropical Pacific during La Niñas, and if there’s a decrease in downwelling longwave radiation there during La Niñas, what caused the drastic rise in tropical Pacific ocean heat content data during the 1995/96 La Niña, as shown above in the graph of tropical Pacific OHC?

    …you, Jan Perlwitz, replied:

    Not my problem to explain that.

    Thanks. That was very funny. You made me laugh.

    The answer is:

    Obviously an increase in (sunlight) downward shortwave radiation (not a decrease in downwelling longwave radiation, infrared radiation) was responsible for the increase in ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific during the 1995/96 La Niña. That La Niña supplied the warm water for the 1997/98 El Niño. The impacts of the 1997/98 El Niño are shown in the two sea surface temperature graphs in my earlier reply to you. No theory. Data.

    Adios, Jan. Thanks for stopping by and sharing. I’m sure your comments will be eye-opening for the many people who visit this thread. If your arguments, Jan, are any indication of the strength of the climate science community, it’s no wonder climate science is in the poor state it’s in.

    Although you’ve been tiring and tiresome, Jan, your visits here served their purpose for me.

    Have a nice day.

  16. Bob Tisdale says:

    NOTE TO VISTORS: JAN PERLWITZ IS NO LONGER WELCOME HERE SO DO NOT EXPECT A REPLY FROM HIM TO YOUR COMMENTS.

  17. RichardLH says:

    Pity, I was going to have fun teasing him about how short his data series was. Oh well, another day.

  18. Bob, you asked some perfectly reasonable questions. Perlwitz either ignored them or misdirected. If you’re a genuine scientist who knows what you’re talking about there is no need to engage in rhetorical nonsense or mislead or duck the questions. You can explain to people patiently what you think is happening. Or why you think the question is inappropriate. He just came across as smarmy and arrogant. Which is a red flag for someone out of his depth.

    Although Bob, you seem to be getting a little cocky yourself there. 😉

  19. RichardLH says:

    Bob: It looks like the very American habit of ‘flashing a gun’ during on-line conversation is not confined to Jan.

    http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

    Richard Linsley-Hood > Alberto Enriquez
    • a day ago

    Hmmm. Do you know what the range of salinity is in the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Mediterranean? Are there shellfish in all of those? Who knew that nature was so flexible?

    Nate Drake > Richard Linsley-Hood
    • 18 hours ago

    “…Did you know humans can survive a bullet to the gut? Who knew humans were so resilient.. guess we can run around shooting people with out remorse now….”

  20. Pingback: HADCRUT4 for 2013: Almost a DNF in Top Ten Warmest | Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations

  21. Pingback: HADCRUT4 for 2013: Almost a DNF in Top Ten Warmest | Watts Up With That?

  22. RichardLH says:

    Bob: Mind you I can get my own back on Nate. He has very thoughtfully and after much persuasion provided an alternative 15 year filter on the GISS data.

    “Filter on NON-detrended GISS LOTI data:

    I ran a 5 pass-multipass with second order polynomials on 15year data windows as per the Savitzky–Golay method.”
    Nate Drake


    (slightly enhanced so that the data and line are visible – no doubt he’ll throw a hissy fit about that).

    I intend to give him full credit to him for the image wherever I use it as it rather nicely shows the ‘pause’.

    Make sure you give him a big ‘thank you’ as well to him for helping out with the ’cause’, just not the one he thought he was helping 🙂

  23. Bob Tisdale, it is a pity that you responded aggressively to Jan Perlwitz’ questions right from the start. It would have been nice to see an open discussion on the merits of your ideas. Now it gave the impression that he found your weak spot and that you wanted him to stop probing your ideas. Also all the attempts to change the discussion to another topic did not give the impression you believe your ideas would hold up in an open discussion.

    And as I’ve written and presented on numerous occasions, my understandings of ENSO are based on data: ocean heat content data, cloud amount data, sea surface temperature data, ocean current data, trade wind strength and direction data, downward shortwave radiation data, downwelling longwave radiation data, lower troposphere temperature data, precipitation data, sea level data, etc.

    I would guess that the problem lies here. You only look at data, which can be very useful to get ideas, but you did not work sufficiently on developing a theory that explains the data. Such a theory would need need to conserve energy (or you would need to show why all of phyisics is wrong to assume conservation of energy) and consequently you would to take the energy balance into account. If you would have such a theory and not just a bunch of graphs with data, your ideas would become more credible. Purely empirical theory-free studies are a dead end.

  24. Bob Tisdale says:

    Victor Venema says: “Bob Tisdale, it is a pity that you responded aggressively to Jan Perlwitz’ questions right from the start.”

    I responded to his questions by providing Jan with a link to past posts that answered his questions. I may have been aggressive, but that was based on my observations of Jan’s tactics from the past.

    Victor Venema says: “It would have been nice to see an open discussion on the merits of your ideas…”

    Based on past history with Jan at WUWT, there are no open discussions with Jan. Jan quotes out of context, refuses to answer questions when the answers are blatantly obvious, etc., as he exhibited on this thread.

    As to my role in climate science, my role is not to present a theory. In fact, I have not presented a theory. I have presented data that indicate the primary cause of the warming of the oceans was due to natural causes. Climate models can’t simulate how, where, why or when the oceans warmed. In fact, over the past 32 years, climate models indicate the surfaces of the global oceans should have warmed twice as fast observed. One would think it was the responsibility of the climate science community to examine data and explain how and why the oceans warmed.

    Regards

  25. RichardLH says:

    Bob: I would have thought that it was the responsibility of both sides to explain any regular pattern that can be observed to be present as well.

    So that they can sensibly be removed from any long term trends.

  26. Bob Tisdale says:

    RichardLH, one would think that. But the climate science community doesn’t even acknowledge how, when, where, and why the oceans warmed as they did.

  27. RichardLH says:

    Well, as you know I’m trying very hard to get them (and others) to accept that there are demonstrable ‘cycles’ in the data sets. Stuff longer than 15 years which is supposed to be where any climate signal would be 🙂

  28. Bob Tisdale says:

    RichardLH: And I’m trying to get them to accept ENSO, not as noise, but as a process that uses sunlight to create heat (warm water)…and that releases that sunlight-created heat into the atmosphere…and that redistributes that warm water within the oceans.

  29. RichardLH says:

    I know. And they WILL not see it.

    I can show that there is a 60 signal in the SST data. But everybody says it is not there!

    HadSST

    I am certain if you try you will find similar patterns in the ENSO data.

    Why this stubbornness to only use Monthly and Yearly low pass filters (which is what means are)?

    Standard means are so crap in mathematical terms I just cannot understand why anyone in this day and age would continue using them. That’s what computers are for. Simple Cascaded Running Means instead of down sampling a continuous, polluted, data stream

    Its a form of discrimination. Only the ‘right’ filters are allowed. Too long and you are refused entry!

    I truly despair.

    Separate the signal into Weather and Climate. Use a 15 year low pass filter to do so. What is wrong with that?

  30. RichardLH says:

    Climate Scientist: I want a tool to examine Climate Temperatures.

    Geek: How do you define Climate?

    Climate Scientist: Longer than 30 years.

    Geek: So you want a tool that will show how the planet’s temperature responds in periods of more than 30 years?

    Climate Scientist: Yes.

    Geek: Well basic theory says that a Low Pass filter with a corner frequency of 15 years will do exactly what you want.

    Climate Scientist: But that’s not complicated enough and anyway that does not show me what I like to see. It says that there are natural oscillations in the signal and my theory says they don’t exist.

    Geek: ??????????

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s